Post #3421071

@nyanbinary@infosec.exchange @Epic_Null@infosec.exchange Indeed, though I personally find myself caring about mass-adoption a lot less, at least from a platform perspective: In the wake of Twitter self-destructing, everyone was so focused on finding The One Replacement where *everyone* could go, myself included. But, looking at the social media landscape that emerged in the years since, I've started to realize...I don't really care about that anymore, and more importantly, I no longer believe mass adoption of a *single specific website/server* is sustainable or desirable at all. Unpacking that is probably a longer discussion - I've got a draft article in progress about it - but basically, so much digital ink has been spilled on worrying about or trying to solve mass-scale platform moderation, because at the scale of Twitter or Facebook, it's kinda impossible for any one group or organization to keep up anymore, even if they have tech-billionaire money. And where I'm at with it is "well then just don't grow that big". As long as interconnectivity exists, we don't all need to be on the same servers, kinda like how multi-network chat apps like Trillian did a really good job of tearing down the walls between the first generation of IM services, without any one particular service needing to carry the load of the entire world's chat communication. How to turn that into a communication and onboarding strategy is where these thoughts need to cook a little more, but I do think there's a lot we haven't tried yet in that department. And my own definition of "mass adoption" has evolved in such a way that I no longer see that as a competition, I see it as *coexistence*. And through the lens of smaller-scale services coexisting, "convenience" no longer has to mean the same thing to everyone, or carry the same priority, because all possible definitions can exist in parallel, and that's ok <3